Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out

Old 27th Jun 2016, 09:21
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Other posters have mentioned that the SOP for emergency landings is to land and end up opposite the waiting emergency vehicles.
Aircraft ended up some distance past the emergency vehicles suggesting this was a MLW or overweight landing.
No fuel dump?
Momoe is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 09:21
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEQ
Age: 54
Posts: 512
Received 24 Likes on 9 Posts
Interesting contrast between this sit tight response to a fairly significant fire and the AA evacuation following smoke from a buggered APU at LHR. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but assuming the crew had the full gen on the extent of the fire, NOT calling the evac seems a rather bold move.
spinex is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 09:26
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mr Good Cat
The camera is mounted on the stabiliser leading edge and gives a view of the wing roots only.

The other camera is behind the nose wheel.
The wing cameras have the engine midscreen and so a bit more than just the wing root.
Capt Ecureuil is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 09:29
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some comments mention the overwing exits in the wrong context.
FYI, LR3 on B773 are manned by cabincrew. It's not like the overwing exits in 737, where you brief pax how to open in case of emergency.

They are normal sized doors fitted with escape slides. The only difference is that pax would get on the wing, turn aft, make few steps and jump and slide. The slide is belly-fairing mounted, not part of the door.

Pax should always follow crew instructions. My believe is that cabin crew were standing by to evacuate if the conditions got worse inside. As we can see in the video there was no
smoke inside. It was one of those 50/50 situations. Everyone was ready to evacuate but they waited to see if the RFFT puts the fire off fast enough not to initate an evacuation.

Also, cabincrew are very well trained on how to assess the situation in and out. The assumption that they could have opened the doors that had hazards outside it's a bit unrealistic. You need to know what training they get before you judge them.
skytrax is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 09:33
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Passengers quoting that there was a fuel smell for a large proportion of the flight and the flight crew made a PA about returning due "not having enough fuel to continue to Milan".

Seems like they had a fuel leak.

The question to be asked then is was the leak from the wing or the engine? No mention of an engine being shut down so perhaps the crew suspected a leak from the wing.

The fire erupted just after landing, possibly caused by leaking fuel being ignited after being sprayed into the hot section during the application of reverse thrust.

Regardless of how it happened I would have initiated an evacuation. I don't understand why they didn't.
The_Cutest_of_Borg is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 09:53
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.

The left side is always the Capt's side.
Ngineer is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:02
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeux
I don't understand the mechanism of the leading and trailing edges burning. How much of the 777 wing is 'wet'?
Fore and aft, 777 wing tanks end less than a foot from the leading edge except at the root. Trailing edge boundaries are a little over a foot near, but shy of the outboard ailerons, and almost a meter at the root.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:05
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it's not glowing, it's not Boeing !

Hat, coat, taxi.....
helen-damnation is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:13
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,551
Received 73 Likes on 42 Posts
If it's not glowing, it's not Boeing !

Hat, coat, taxi.....
Uber!

Best post of the thread, Damn!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:20
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fire was contained to the wing. The fire services continued to fight and gain control of the "contained" fire. As soon as an evacuation is communicated the RFF will pull back.
When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained.
Really? I was told by an airport fire fighter that they can create a "tunnel" at an exit using water/foam to enable people to get off. To stop firefighting when an ecacuation starts sounds very strange to me.
I'm no 777 driver, but on the 737 there is only one way to control a fuel leak. You shut down the engine. What does the 777 tell you to do?
If the procedure is the same as on the 737, this whole scenario could have been avoided.
No evacuation when the whole wing is on fire? We are very lucky we are not reading about hundreds of charred bodies. Pure luck! And maybe another tick in the 777 quality box.

Short memory people?

How 1985 British Airtours disaster changed air travel - BBC News
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:20
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure an SLF on that flight I'd have been waiting for a evac order if I saw that.

My view would be if you want to chance that, good luck to you, but, see ya later, I'm out.
lurker999 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:21
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 858
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Makes you wonder what would have happened if it had been 180 mins away from a suitable alternate. How well do these things float?
hunterboy is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:30
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A few questions about how this would be handled up front and onboard:

1. Wouldn't the crew have had ample opportunity to discuss and brief different scenarios before landing, including briefing the cabin crew for a possible evacuation.
2. If 1 above, then surely an evacuation on the good engine side would have also been prepared?
3. Can't the cabin be reorganised to move people away from the bad engine (free seats permitting) - or does this promote panic so is not recommended?

Amazing that people just sat in the window seats next to those flames and filmed it - the era of smart phones and you tube posting!!
Neptune262 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:44
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Straya
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the event that a fuel leak is confirmed on the 777 - the suspected engine is shut down immediately to avoid an engine fire. Once the engine is shut down, then more fault finding is conducted to identify whether the leak is from the engine or wing.

If the leak is confirmed as from the wing, the engine may be restarted...
Bring Back The Biff is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:53
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,551
Received 73 Likes on 42 Posts
And maybe another tick in the 777 quality box.
Dunno about that. Two in 12 months becoming flaming then smouldering wrecks...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 10:59
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Total flight time was 4hr 31m (18:17 UTC to 22:48 UTC)

Tracking suggests it maintained 17,000 ft altitude since 21:02 UTC (no tracking before that).

This being 12hr flight they either dumped or lost lot of fuel. FL suggests engine shutdown. Probably ignited on landing.

Fuel line rupture/failure inside the engine and fuel value failure(not able to shut off), may be.

Based on JACDEC track plot, BKK would be the closest major, but if they have to dump fuel SIN is not a bad option.

Assuming there is not much fuel left, I think it is too early to second guess crew's actions.
notapilot15 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 11:09
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow, what a contrast to the AA evacuation at LHR, where smoke alone caused an evacuation. From the video it looks like there's almost nothing wrong with the aircraft. And here we have an aeroplane engulfed in flames and no one is doing a thing. From the video's taken by pax they don't even seem in the least bit concerned.
Airmann is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 11:11
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dunno about that. Two in 12 months becoming flaming then smouldering wrecks...
That would be the engines, no?
The airframe has so far done an excellent job in protecting it's passengers. Crash or fire.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 11:13
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So many people here getting outraged without any knowledge of the situation aside from a couple of short videos, and also apparently without too much knowledge of fire behaviour.

Firstly a five minute response time is not a bad response time especially if the aircraft had to roll out being heavy. I've had personal experience getting fire appliances to work. It takes longer than you imagine. When you are doing it it feels like an eternity.

Secondly it's clear there is fuel leaking from the wing. That means it could easily spread under the fuselage and be present on the left side of the aircraft. The wing being freely on fire in this situation is much more stable than the kind of fire you see during a high speed landing. Actually in this situation you want either fuel to be burning or not able to burn and nothing in between. It's highly likely that there were considerations around the risks of inflating the emergency slides into a potential ground pool fuel fire. I think that would be a much more dangerous situation. There is also the issue of radiant heat. I'd say that evacuees in this instance may have been at risk of burns from radiant heat.

When you are responding to a fire situation you are generally responding to a novel situation and you need to assess the situation and make the best choices you can. None of us here have all the information, are not in a position to decide on what the best decision would be, and most have no experience in fire fighting.

The end result of this is that no one was hurt and I think the fire was extinguished relatively quickly.
bud leon is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2016, 11:21
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3 minutes is the response time at my home airport.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.